This document discusses the study of different bracing patterns used in pre-engineering buildings. It analyzes the harp, perimetral, and peripheral bracing patterns through 3D modeling and structural analysis software. The harp pattern directly controls column displacement through tensile beams. The perimetral pattern connects panels to control deflections and forces. The peripheral pattern minimizes deflections at eave ends. Analysis of the models found that the perimetral pattern most effectively controls lateral and longitudinal loads and is the most economical in terms of steel consumption.

1. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 02 | Feb 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 899
STUDY OF HARPS PERIPHERAL AND PERIMETRAL BRACINGS PATTERN
SHAPE IN PRE ENGINEERING BUILDING
Shubham Bindoriya1 Dr. J. N Vyas2
1Student, Department of civil engineering Mahakal Institute of Technology and Management Ujjain
2Director, Mahakal Institute of Technology and Management Ujjain
---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - India is a fast growing country in
industrialization. So there areneedofstoreandmanufacture
of low cost industrial warehouse. A Warehouse is a building
in which various types of industrial manufactures
transportation and storage purpose are use. They are many
large span in their for working or storage purposes. This
topic of work is decided as to know the driftnet type of
bracing pattern is use for design of industrial warehouse.
This structure is proposed to design according to IS 800-
2007. And the dead live and wind load assign as per IS875-
1987/2015 – Part 1 to 3
Key Words: Industrial building, bracing, lateral load,
optimization, and steel weight/cost.
I. INTRODUCTION
Highlight a from 20th century onwards, steel buildings are
being used in all kinds of structure and their demand is
increasing. The use of steel buildings became more useful
when people got to know about its various advantages.
These structures are used for various typesof industrial and
commercial purposes. Pre- engineering buildings came into
existence in 1960's. It has floor, ceiling frame etc. which
were put together to make the structure. As a result, this
made construction easier
Bracing patterns:
Case 1- Harp shape Bracing pattern: Harp shape bracing
pattern system are those. in which the head displacement in
each column is directly controlled by axial tensile action
from its corresponding bending beam. This system is more
efficient system in bracing beam, when working against
bending stress, displacement and finally achieves certain
control of frame. This new type bracing systemiscalledharp
shape bracing pattern.
Case 2- Perimetral shape Bracing pattern: Perimetral
bracing shape connect with AlterNet panel like end panel
and mid panel. And control deflection and forcesofmember.
In steel structure trusses the column is receive first load
after that they initially suffer a trend to displace, but use
bracing beam to stop displacement of the column or beam.
Case 3- Peripheral shape Bracing pattern:. In peripheral
bracing minimum deflection control in eave ends and. give
batter results to control deflectionandlateral forces.Various
advantage and disadvantage of choosing this shape of
bracing pattern in trusses they are also effect price of
structure and also effect size of footing.
II. ANALYSIS OF PEB STRUCTURE
DESIGN DATA –
a). Length Of Span - 60M b).
Width of Span - 30M
c). Uniform Height of Span - 8M
d). Bay Spacing - 7.5M
e). No. of spacing - 8 No
f). Height of Truss - 11M
g). Angle of Slope - 11 Degree
h).Location of truss - Pithampur indore
i). Wind Speed - 39 M/S
j).Earthquake Zone - II
 DEAD LOAD
Self Weight of Structure as per staad pro software analysis
and multiplication factor 1.1 is taken to for weight of
welding and connection.
1) 1) Assume weight of Galvanized sheet – 4.51 Kg/m^2.
2) Self Weight of design purlins – 6.40 Kg/m^2
TOTAL LOAD = 10.91 Kg/m^2 = 11 Kg/m^2
3) U.D.L for main rafter at mid = 0.11 x7.5 = 0.825
KN/M^2
4) U.D.L for main rafter at end.= 0.11 x7.5/2 = 0.4125
KN/M^2
 LIVE LOAD
As Per IS 875 part – 2 imposed load for non excisable
roof or truss = 0.75 KN/M^2
 WIND LOAD
As Per IS 875- (2015) part – 3 wind load
 EARTHQUACK LOAD :-
As per IS 1893 part 1 (2000/2005)

2. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 02 | Feb 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 900
DIFFRETNT PATTERN OF BRACINGS USE –
Fig 1.1. 3D Model of PEB Structural Configuration of Harp
pattern Bracings.
Fig1.2. 3D Model of PEB Structural Configuration of
Perimetral Pattern Bracings.
Fig 1.3. 3D Model of PEB Structural Configuration of
Peripheral Pattern Bracings.
III. PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
1) Modeling in Staad pro and applying load on
structure as per codes.
2) Deflection control all rafter purlins and column
deflection are control in permissible limit.
3)Minimum and maximum tensile and compressive
stress checks and verified in all three cases.
4) Utilization is also check in purlins and rafter at all
three cases and compares each and one shown in
table.
5) Optimization is done so arrive at an economic
structural configuration.
6) Extract all the result and compare it in all three
cases.
IV. SERVISIBELITY CHECKS
As per table no. 6 IS 800: 2007.
Permissible limit of deflection for rater and purlins is span
/180.
Fig. – Maximum Displacement in various types of
Bracing Pattern.
V. COMPARISION FOR STRESS RESULT SHOWN
0
50
100
150
0 20 40
Stress
N/mm^2
Span
Harp
Shape
Perimetr
al Shape
Periphera
l Shape

3. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 02 | Feb 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 901
VI. TOTAL STEEL CONSUPTION:
BRACING TYPE WEIGHT
IN TONS
FLOOR
AREA
IN SQFT
WEIGHT
IN
KG/ SQFT
PEB Shed With
parimetral shape
bracing.
420 KN 19377
SQFT.
2.16 Kg
/Sqft.
PEB Shed With
Peripheral shape
bracing.
489KN 19377
SQFT.
2.52 Kg
/Sqft.
PEB Shed With
Harp shape
bracing.
520KN 19377
SQFT.
2.69 Kg
/sqft.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
1. The overall study shown that perimetral shape
bracing are more effective to control lateral and
longitudinal load. And use Perimetral shape of
2. Bracing are much economical comparatively other
pattern of bracing.
3. As per the all three cases there are no changes in
load case, load pattern and wind forces, which
change with the Bracing pattern, location and sizes
of bracing, The change of Bracing location and
pattern is also affect the forces and control the
forces.
4. Steel is a very costly material of construction. So In
our study for warehouse structure Use tapered
section, tapered section is reducing self weight of
structure, increases life of structure.
5. Reduction quantity of steel is directly affect the
reduction of dead load and reduction of dead load
are reduce size of footing, column and all other
member.
6. The overall study showed that Perimetral shape
bracing pattern is very helpful to control stress as
compared to other cases.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thanks director sir for their precious
guideline and support.
REFERENCES
1. M. Sabetha completed a numerical study and
concluded that Weight of single Truss utilizing
Angle and Pipe both is less compared to PEB yet
because of Weight of Channel Purlin,WeightofSteel
Truss Building is on higher side.
2. Vaibhav B. Chavan determined optimum span
length for economy.
3. Subhrakant Mohakul designed an Industrial
warehouse and did a thoroughstudyofbehaviourof
members due to effect of failure at connecting
joints.
4. Manan D.Maisuri stated that the consumption of
steel of whole industrial building can be reducedby
deciding appropriate geometry of truss and by
using hollow steel section with compare to
conventional steel section. Thus stating tube
sections are most economical.
5. A.Jayaraman presents a study on behavior and
economical of roof trusses and channel section
purlins by comparison of LSM and WSM.
6. Praveen S. et al. (2015) took up the study of
various types of roof trusses like Warren, N, Pratt
and Howe truss systems. It was seen that the
Warren truss is most economical among all.
7. Viren Chandanshive (2018) took up the study of
design of industrial warehouse as per Indian
standard code.
8. Anil V. Bandre at al. (2019) carried out a study to
compare design using hot rolled steel section and
built up sections. It has been concluded that the
shear force,bending momentanddisplacementsare
comparatively lower in PEB than in using hot rolled
steel section